The  Battle  for  Municipal  Freedom 


An  Address  by 

J.  Hampden  Dougherty  of  New  York  City 
At  the  Home  Rule  Conference 

Utica,  New  York,  Sept.  21,  1912 


NEW  YORK 

The  Municipal  Government  Association 

38  Park  Row 

1913 


r  c 


j 


\v 


The  Battle  for  Municipal  Freedom. 

The  object  of  the  Municipal  Government  Asso¬ 
ciation  is  unmistakable.  It  is  to  unite  the  cities 
of  New  York  State  in  the  battle  for  municipal  free¬ 
dom.  Its  immediate  purpose  is  to  crystallize  home 
rule  sentiment  and  procure  from  party  conventions 
some  explicit  pledge  that  this  cause  shall  be  ad¬ 
vanced  by  specific  measures,  whatever  party  may 
be  promoted  to  power  in  the  State  government. 
The  Association  has  obtained  from  the  State  Con¬ 
vention  of  one  party  a  declaration  that  municipalities 
should  be  given  power  to  adopt  and  amend  their  char¬ 
ters  under  a  wise  general  law,  free  from  legislative  in¬ 
terference.  The  soundness  of  this  proposition  is  chal¬ 
lenged  by  those  who  declare  that  a  municipality  being 
the  creature  of  the  state  is  absolutely  at  the  mercy  of 
the  state  legislature  to  which  it  owes  its  life,  and 
which  may  abolish  or  change  its  charter  at  will. 
To  delve  into  the  origin  of  this  notion  would  seem 
unnecessary.  The  charters  granted  by  the  King  of 
England  to  his  American  colonists  were,  to  use  the 
language  of  the  Crown  lawyers,  mere  certificates 
of  incorporation  changeable  at  the  will,  even  the 
whim,  of  royalty.  The  doctrine  was  never  willingly 
accepted  by  the  colonies  and  with  the  Revolution 
it  ceased  to  have  any  political  significance.  A  phase 
of  it  survived  and  entered  into  American  public  cor¬ 
poration  law;  but  it  has  never  been  thoroughly 
rooted  there,  it  has  always  been  questioned,  and  its 
limitations  tacitly  admitted.  According  to  some  of 
the  older  lawyers  the  established  rule  was  that  a 
charter  granted  to  a  municipal  corporation  must 
be  construed  so  strictly  that  nothing  may  pass  by 
bare  inference  and  that  every  substantial  power 
must  be  found  in  the  express  terms  of  the  grant. 


In  the  battle  for  municipal  freedom  we  are  con¬ 
fronted  at  the  outset  with  this  proposition,  as  an 
obstacle  to  city  emancipation.  According  to  this 
concept  cities  have  no  right  whatever  to  any  free¬ 
dom  ;  they  are  mere  legislative  creatures,  legisla¬ 
tive  serfs,  whose  government  may  be  altered  accord¬ 
ing  to  legislative  caprice.  To  combat  this  notion,  to 
expose  its  fallacy,  may  properly  occupy  a  few  min¬ 
utes  of  our  time.  If  it  is  a  fetich,  the  fetich  should 
be  destroyed. 

This  is  an  age  of  iconoclasm.  The  tremendous 
impetus  given  to  thought  by  the  scientific,  indus¬ 
trial  and  social  evolution  of  the  last  sixty  or  seventy 
years  has  affected  also  our  political  and  economic 
ideas.  Long  accepted  creeds  are  now  questioned. 
No  doctrine  based  merely  on  tradition,  however 
long  accepted  or  highly  praised,  is  now  safe  from 
mordant  analysis.  In  the  general  intellectual  up¬ 
rising,  old  theories  of  political  economy  and  as¬ 
sumed  axioms  of  jurisprudence  must  expect  rough 
handling.  The  false  and  the  mistaken  will  dis¬ 
appear,  the  sound  will  survive  and  will  emerge  the 
stronger  from  the  ordeal. 

A  Prevalent  Theory. 

The  notion  that  a  city  charter  is  a  purely  legisla¬ 
tive  creation  alterable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  legis¬ 
lature  has  indeed  been  altogether  too  prevalent,  but  it 
has  been  resisted  by  some  of  the  ablest  judges  and 
students  of  self-government.  In  two  cases  of  first 
importance  the  .Supreme  Court  of  Michigan  has 
shown  that  back  of  the  written  constitution  of  that 
state  (and  the  same  is  true  in  all  the  states)  lay  a 
scheme  of  local  self-government  which  was  presup¬ 
posed  by  the  constitution  and  could  not  be  abro¬ 
gated  by  the  legislature.  In  the  earlier  case  the 
Court  held  an  act  of  the  state  legislature  appoint¬ 
ing  a  permanent  board  of  water  commissioners  of 


the  City  of  Detroit  unconstitutional  as  in  conflict 
with  the  principle  of  local  self-government.  In  the 
later  case  the  Court  declared  unconstitutional  a 
statute  under  which  the  Michigan  legislature  had 
assumed  without  the  consent  of  the  people  of  the 
city  of  Detroit  to  authorize  the  construction  of  a 
new  park  for  the  city. 

According  to  the  opinions  of  the  judges  incor¬ 
porated  cities  and  boroughs  had  always,  both  in 
England  and  in  America,  been  self-governing  com¬ 
munities  ;  the  creation  of  a  municipal  corporation 
was  nothing  more  nor  less  than  “investing  in  the 
people  of  the  place  the  local  government  thereof 
and  the  legislature  had  no  power  to  take  from  the 
people  of  the  locality  the  management  of  their  local 
concerns.  The  question,  said  Judge  Cooley  in  his 
opinion  in  the  earlier  case,  was  “nothing  short  of 
this :  Whether  local  self-government  in  this  state  is 
or  is  not  a  mere  privilege,  conceded  by  the  legisla¬ 
ture  in  its  discretion,  and  which  may  be  withdrawn 
at  any  time  at  pleasure.”  After  quoting  from  De 
Tocqueville*  regarding  our  system  of  local  govern¬ 
ment  he  argued  that  the  historical  fact  in  this  coun¬ 
try  was  that  local  governments  universally  were 
either  simultaneous  with  or  preceded  the  more  cen¬ 
tral  authority.  The  right  of  local  self-government 
was  part  of  our  Anglican  liberty  gained  step  by  step 
and  would  never  be  surrendered. 


Judge  Cooley’s  Opinions. 

In  the  second  case  where  the  state  legislature  had 
mandatorily  created  a  public  park  for  the  city  of 
Detroit,  the  Supreme  Court  through  Judge  Cooley 
reaffirmed  the  doctrines  of  the  Hurlbut  case.  It 


♦“Local  assemblies  of  citizens  constitute  the  strength  of  free 
nations.  Municipal  institutions  are  to  liberty  what  primary 
schools  are  to  science;  they  bring  it  within  the  people’s  reach; 
they  teach  men  how  to  use  and  how  to  enjoy  it.  A  nation  may 
establish  a  free  government,  but  without  the  spirit  of  municipal 
institutions  it  cannot  have  the  spirit  of  liberty.” 


3 


denied  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  compel  a 
municipal  body  to  contract  debts  for  local  purposes 
against  its  will.  The  Court  conceded  that  in  all 
matters  of  general  concern  there  was  no  local  right 
to  act  independently  of  the  state;  the  local  authori¬ 
ties,  for  example,  could  not  be  permitted  to  deter¬ 
mine  for  themselves  whether  they  would  contribute 
through  taxation  to  the  support  of  the  state  govern¬ 
ment  or  when  required  assist  in  suppressing 
insurrection  or  in  enforcing  the  police  laws. 
But  in  respect  of  distinctively  local  matters  the  city 
authorities  were  supreme.  It  is  not  from  the  stand¬ 
point  of  state  interest  but  from  that  of  local  interest 
that  the  necessity  of  incorporating  cities  and  villages 
most  distinctly  appears.  The  powers  and  capacities 
of  a  city  were  therefore  largely  private  in  contra¬ 
distinction  to  those  which  were  public  which  it  en¬ 
joyed  as  a  branch  of  the  state.  The  views  of  Judge 
Cooley  and  his  associates  were  not  revolutionary ; 
they  were  in  accord  with  the  theory  and  practice 
that  prevailed  almost  universally  until  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  political  fetich  that  a  city  charter  should  be 
absolutely  under  legislative  domination  is  a  com¬ 
paratively  modern  notion.  As  has  been  well  said : 
“The  charters  of  the  English  cities  were  as  various 
as  their  sites,  but  they  all  involved  local  self-govern¬ 
ment  and  wide  suffrage  in  the  selection  of  govern¬ 
ment.”  The  idea  of  legislative  domination  had  little 
footing  in  Europe,  and  it  is  opposed  both  to  theory 
and  practice  in  the  earlier  days  of  our  American 
cities.  Chancellor  Kent,  whose  ability  to  speak  upon 
this  subject  is  unquestionable,  declared  that  broad 
and  latitudinary  powers  had  been  conferred  by  King 
George  II  upon  the  City  of  New  York,  through  the 
Montgomerie  charter,  that  these  were  given  to  be 
exercised  with  sound  discretion  and  with  a  liberal 
spirit  commensurate  with  the  growing  wants  and 


4 


prosperity  of  a  great  commercial  metropolis,  and  he 
added  “the  courts  construe  powers  liberally  for  this 
purpose.”  Here  is  the  antithesis  of  the  idea  that 
the  grant  of  power  should  be  stingily  and  grudgingly 
interpreted. 


New  York  Charter  of  1830. 

In  the  New  York  City  charter  of  1830  there  was 
no  enumeration  of  powers  whatever.  The  charter 
was  a  genuine  city  constitution  drawn  by  residents 
of  the  city  elected  as  delegates  to  the  city  conven¬ 
tion  of  1829.  It  was  ratified  at  a  city  convention  by 
the  qualified  voters  of  the  city.  Chancellor  Kent 
was  retained  by  the  city  fathers  to  explain  the 
charter.  In  his  notes  upon  it  he  asserted  that  the 
charter  powers  were  ample  for  all  city  purposes: 
“A  common  council  can  always  resort  to  the  never 
failing  powers  under  the  charter,  which  gives  broad 
and  large  authority  commensurate  to  every  case.” 
The  amended  New  York  City  charter  of  1849  con¬ 
tained  no  detailed  enumeration  of  legislative  powers. 
It  did  not  go  into  effect  until  it  had  been  submitted 
to  the  voters  of  the  city  for  their  approval.  The 
Tweed  charter  of  1870  was  the  first  to  limit  the 
city  legislature.  One  section  contained  a  long  list 
of  powers  which  the  city  legislature  might  exercise. 
Nevertheless  this  section  of  enumerated  powers 
closed  with  the  language  that  in  addition  the 
council  should  have  power  to  carry  into  ef¬ 
fect  and  enforce  “any  of  the  powers,  privi¬ 
leges  and  rights  at  any  time  granted  and  be¬ 
stowed  upon  or  possessed  by  the  said  corporation.” 

The  Charter  of  1872. 

*~The  charter  drawn  for  the  City  of  New  York  by 
the  Committee  of  Seventy,  in  1872,  contained  a 
comprehensive  grant  of  legislative  authority.  It 
was  approved  by  the  Senate  and  the  Assembly. 


5 


Governor  Hoffman’s  veto  of  it  has  often  been  mis¬ 
interpreted.  He  had  no  antipathy  to  a  broad  grant 
of  power  to  the  city  government;  his  veto  was 
rested  upon  the  ground  that  the  charter  provisions 
for  minority  representation  were  unconstitutional. 
Hoffman  had  long  been  a  believer  in  the  emancipa¬ 
tion  of  cities  from  legislative  interference.  In  the 
history  of  the  state  he  stands  as  one  of  the  leading 
protagonists  of  municipal  home  rule.  He  had  been 
mayor  of  the  City  of  New  York  in  the  days  when 
the  annual  city  budget,  now  carefully  discussed  be¬ 
fore,  and  approved  by,  the  city’s  Board  of  Estimate 
and  Apportionment,  was  carried  up  to  Albany, 
where  every  item  however  petty  was  considered  by 
the  legislature  and  changed.  He  had  seen  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  City  of  New  York  wrested  from  its 
people  and  usurped  by  the  legislature  in  1857.  In 
his  messages  to  the  legislature  while  Governor  he 
repeatedly  urged  that  the  cities  of  the  state  be  un¬ 
shackled,  that  they  be  permitted  to  frame  their  own 
form  of  government,  and  in  the  justly  famous  mes¬ 
sage  which  as  Governor  he  sent  to  the  legislature  in 
1872,  advocating  the  creation  of  a  constitutional 
commission  to  report  to  the  legislature  a  revised 
constitution  of  the  State,  he  dwelt  eloquently  and 
emphatically  upon  the  grave  importance  of  a  re¬ 
turn  to  earlier  municipal  freedom. 

George  Opdyke’s  Views. 

One  of  the  foremost  members  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tional  Commission  of  1872  was  George  Opdyke,  a 
man  of  broad  and  liberal  ideas,  who  had  been  mayor 
of  the  City  of  New  York  in  the  early  sixties.  His 
experience  in  municipal  government  in  that  city 
in  the  course  of  which  he  found  the  city 
tied  hand  and  foot  by  the  legislature,  made  him  an 
earnest  champion  of  the  doctrine  of  municipal  free¬ 
dom.  In  the  Constitutional  Commission  of  1872 


6 


Opd^ke  was  chairman  of  its  Committee  on  Cities 
and  City  Government.  Some  of  his  opinions  may 
have  seemed  to  savor  of  aristocracy.  He  was  an 
advocate  of  restricted  suffrage  and  this  advocacy 
affected  unfavorably  the  reception  accorded  to  his 
other  views  of  city  government,  which  were  un¬ 
doubtedly  sound.  He  drew  and  submitted  to  the 
Constitutional  Commission  of  1872  a  new  Article 
to  the  State  Constitution  which  was  called  the 
Municipal  Article,  the  chief  and  salient  provision  of 
which  was  as  follows : 

“The  government  of  every  city  shall  have 
within  its  own  boundary,  exclusive  legislative 
power  in  all  matters  relating  to  taxation  and 
expenditure  for  local  purposes,  the  care,  regu¬ 
lation  and  improvement  of  its  streets,  avenues, 
public  grounds,  and  public  buildings,  of  its 
supply  and  distribution  of  water,  of  its  alms¬ 
houses  and  its  other  charitable  and  benevolent 
institutions,  and  may  exercise  such  further  pow¬ 
ers  as  shall  be  conferred  by  law.” 

His  Municipal  Article  provided  also  that  at  its 
first  session  after  the  ratification  of  the  article  by 
the  people  the  legislature  should  enact  a  general 
law  for  the  government  of  cities  in  harmony  there¬ 
with.  Opdyke’s  Municipal  Article  was  unanimously 
approved  by  his  associates  in  the  Constitutional 
Commission,  and  reported  by  that  body  to  the  state 
legislature.  But  the  legislature  refused  to  permit 
the  people  to  vote  upon  it,  although  it  accepted  a 
large  measure  of  the  Commission’s  report  and  au¬ 
thorized  the  submission  to  the  people  in  the  fall 
election  of  1874  of  a  long  series  of  amendments  to 
the  constitution,  all  of  which  were  ratified  at  the 
polls.  The  arguments  of  Opdyke  and  his  associ¬ 
ates  in  the  Commission  were  never  met  upon  the 
floor  of  the  legislature ;  in  fact,  there  was  no  debate 
in  the  legislature  upon  the  question  of  submission, 


7 


for  the  article  never  advanced  beyond  the  Commit¬ 
tee  rooms. 

Gov.  Tilden’s  Message. 

The  battle  for  municipal  freedom  did  not,  how¬ 
ever,  end  there.  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  because  of  his 
successful  assault  upon  the  Twed  ring,  was  elected 
Governor  in  the  fall  of  1874.  So  profoundly  was  he 
impressed  with  the  importance  of  the  liberation  of 
cities  from  legislative  control  that  shortly  after  he 
took  office,  in  a  special  message  to  the  legislature, 
he  urged  the  appointment  of  a  commission  of  not 
more  than  twelve  persons  “to  devise  a  plan  for  the 
government  of  cities  and  to  report  the  same  to  the 
next  legislature.”  This  necessarily  meant  a  general 
plan.  Governor  Tilden’s  views  were  frankly  stated 
in  his  message.  The  commission  was  to  indicate 
“the  true  sphere  of  independent  city  authority.”  In 
the  Governor’s  judgment  this  sphere  in  the  most 
completely  developed  municipality 

“embraced  the  care  of  police,  health,  schools, 
street  cleaning,  preventing  of  fire,  supplying 
water  and  gas,  and  similar  matters  most  con¬ 
veniently  attended  to  in  partnership  by  per¬ 
sons  living  together  in  a  dense  community,  and 
the  expenditure  and  taxation  necessary  for 
those  objects.” 

In  fact,  the  whole  domain  of  municipal  matters 
was  to  be  under  the  control  of  the  city  with  the 
single  exception  of  “rights  of  persons,  property,  and 
the  judicial  systems  instituted  for  their  preserva¬ 
tion.”  These  were  within  the  province  of  general 
legislation  or  the  general  government.  They  were 
vast  domains  which  the  functions  of  municipal  cor¬ 
porations  and  municipal  officers  do  not  touch.  Til¬ 
den,  like  Opdyke  and  Hoffman,  ardently  believed 
in  genuine  municipal  home  rule.  He  was  not  a  vic¬ 
tim  of  the  fetich  that  the  city  was  the  mere  crea¬ 
ture  of  the  State  and  that  a  city  charter  might  be 


8 


altered  to  suit  the  purposes  of  politicians  as  the 
legislature  might  will.  The  legislature  appointed 
a  small  commission  of  eminent  citizens,  selecting 
the  members,  as  the  Governor  had  suggested, 
equally  from  the  two  leading  political  parties.  At 
the  head  of  the  commission  was  William  M. 
Evarts,  of  national  fame.  One  of  its  members,  Ed¬ 
ward  Cooper,  brought  to  his  work  experience  as 
mayor  of  the  City  of  New  York.  All  their  asso¬ 
ciates  were  students  of  municipal  government  and 
recognized  authorities  as  publicists  and  editors. 

The  Evarts  Commission. 

This  commission,  like  the  Constitutional  Conven¬ 
tion  of  1872,  was,  it  is  true,  affected  by  the  vagary 
which  impaired  the  value  of  the  constitutional  arti¬ 
cle  prepared  by  Mr.  Opdyke.  It  believed  that  there 
should  be  a  board  of  audit  in  every  city  chosen  by 
taxpayers  only ;  in  other  words,  that  all  questions 
of  taxation  and  expenditure  in  the  city  should  be 
under  the  control  of  a  body  chosen  exclusively  by 
taxpayers.  But  its  conception  of  the  province  of 
city  government,  of  the  right  of  the  city  to  free¬ 
dom  from  legislative  dictation  in  respect  to  all 
local  affairs  was  eminently  sound.  The  municipal 
article  which  it  proposed  to  incorporate  in  the 
state  constitution,  in  no  uncertain  terms,  declared 
its  faith  as  follows : 

“The  legislature  shall  itself  have  no  power  to 
pass  any  law  for  the  opening,  making,  paving, 
lighting,  or  otherwise  improving  or  maintain¬ 
ing  streets,  avenues,  parks,  or  places,  docks  or 
wharves,  or  for  any  other  local  work  or  im¬ 
provement  in  or  for  a  city,  but  all  authority 
necessary  for  such  purposes  shall  be  by  law  con¬ 
ferred  on  the  city  government.” 

This  report,  largely  prepared  by  Mr.  Evarts,  is  a 
statesmanlike  document  of  the  first  rank.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  Mr.  Bryce,  it  may  be  said  to  have  become 


9 


classical.  Resort  has  been  made  to  it  by  students 
of  municipal  government  from  time  to  time  all  over 
the  country.  It  is  a  treasure  house  of  information. 
But  its  notion  of  emancipating  the  cities  of  the 
State  from  legislative  control  aroused  the  sharpest 
antagonism  in  the  legislature.  It  was  carried  in 
one  session  of  the  legislature  but  it  was  smothered 
in  committee  in  the  next  succeeding  legislature, 
the  politicians  in  that  body  taking  care  that  no  such 
provision  should  be  submitted  to  the  people. 

Evils  of  Special  Charters. 

Although  for  more  than  forty  years  (for  we  may 
go  back  to  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1867), 
the  foremost  students  of  municipal  government 
have  been  advocating  municipal  home  rule,  the 
legislature  has  seen  to  it  that  the  people  should 
never  have  an  opportunity  to  vote  upon  the  ques¬ 
tion  whether  they  favored  it  or  not.  The  incon¬ 
gruities  and  absurdities  of  special  charters  for  cit¬ 
ies  were  very  clearly  pointed  out  as  far  back  as 
1846  by  Henry  C.  Murphy,  of  Brooklyn,  in  the 
State  Constitutional  Convention  that  year,  in  a 
minority  report  from  the  Committee  on  Cities.  He 
strongly  urged  a  constitutional  amendment  pro¬ 
viding  that 

“no  charter  or  special  act  for  the  incorporation 
of  any  city  or  village  should  be  granted;  that 
general  and  uniform  laws  should  be  passed  for 
the  incorporation  of  cities,  and  like  laws  for 
the  incorporation  of  villages,  subject  to  such 
alterations  as  the  legislature  should  from  time 
to  time  deem  proper  to  make.” 

Had  Murphy’s  views  then  met  general  accept¬ 
ance,  what  progress  in  city  government  might  have 
been  made  in  the  meantime! 

Partial  Emancipation. 

A  partial  degree  of  emancipation  was  secured  in 
the  constitution  framed  by  the  Convention  of  1894, 


io 


but  it  is  only  partial.  As  is  well  known,  that  con¬ 
vention  was  under  Republican  control.  Under  the 
constitution  of  the  State  in  force  in  1886  the  people 
should  have  been  permitted  to  vote  that  year  upon 
the  question  whether  a  convention  should  be  called 
to  revise  and  amend  the  State’s  organic  law.  That 
vote  was  delayed  for  years  because  of  differences 
as  to  apportionment  and  the  election  of  delegates 
between  the  Governor  and  the  legislature,  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  being  a  Democrat,  the  legislature  Republi¬ 
can.  The  Constitutional  Convention  which  met  in 
1894  was  under  Republican  domination ;  many 
of  its  members  were  afraid  to  trust  the  people  fully, 
the  agitation  in  the  Convention  for  municipal  au¬ 
tonomy  was  voted  down ;  the  Convention  contented 
itself  with  adopting  the  system  of  city  classification 
which  gave  cities  through  their  mayors  or  their 
city  legislatures  some  degree  of  surveillance  over 
legislation  intended  to  affect  the  city. 


A  Fallacious  Notion. 

The  fallacious  notion  that  the  people  of  the  State 
were  to  be  asked  to  abandon  all  authority  over  the 
cities  of  the  State  infected  even  some  of  the  lead¬ 
ers  in  the  Convention.  They  could  not  seem  to 
understand  that  in  regard  to  its  local  powers  the 
city  should  be  set  entirely  free  from  legislative  con¬ 
trol,  subject  only  to  the  constitution  and  the  general 
laws  of  the  State.  Their  attitude  was  diametrically 
opposite  to  that  of  the  Tilden  Commission  whose 
policy  was  to  give  cities  practically  unlimited 
sovereignty  in  purely  local  matters.  What  a  gain 
to  the  State  legislature  would  be  the  removal  of 
the  incubus  of  special  city  legislation !  It  would 
be  relieved  from  the  tedious  consideration,  of  in¬ 
numerable  details  regarding  city  government.  It 
would  be  able  to  devote  undivided  attention  to  mat- 


ii 


ters  affecting  the  policy  of  the  entire  State.  In¬ 
stead  of  being  politicans,  log-rollers,  and  agents  of 
special  interests,  legislators  might  rise  to  the  dig¬ 
nity  of  statesmen  with  broad  vision.  One  has  but 
to  glance  at  the  session  laws  from  year  to  year  to 
perceive  the  waste  of  legislative  time  over  the  petty 
minutiae  of  city  government.  Special  charters  for 
cities  represent  a  vast  amount  of  misdirected  legis¬ 
lative  energy.  The  report  of  the  Tilden  Commis¬ 
sion  declared  that  the  State  legislature  had  not  the 
requisite  time  to  direct  the  local  affairs  of  munici¬ 
palities,  nor  had  it  the  requisite  knowledge  of  de¬ 
tails.  If  this  was  true  in  1877  how  much  clearer  in 
1912,  with  the  increase  in  the  number  of  cities  and 
the  growing  complexity  of  their  affairs,  that  the 
legislature  is  undertaking  a  task  transcending 
human  power.  Let  the  legislature  relinquish  its 
Sisypheian  labor  and  give  it  over  to  the  cities  them¬ 
selves.  They  will  be  able  to  do  it  well,  for  it  is  their 
proper  work. 

It  is  not  enough  to  classify  the  cities  of  the  State 
or  to  provide  that  special  laws  affecting  them  should 
before  going  into  operation  be  subject  to  the  ap¬ 
proval  of  the  local  authorities — the  mayor  in  cities 
of  the  first  class  and  the  mayor  and  common  coun¬ 
cil  in  smaller  cities.  Undeniably  this  constitutional 
amendment  has  its  advantages.  It  has  aroused 
a  degree  of  watchfulness  of  local  bills  on  the  part 
of  city  officials  and  public-spirited  bodies  and  has 
led  to  the  defeat  of  many  vicious  measures.  But 
it  is  easy  for  the  legislature  to  override  the  dis¬ 
approval  of  a  bill  by  the  city  authorities,  as  it  takes 
only  a  majority  vote  to  pass  such  a  bill  upon  its 
return  to  the  legislature.  The  amendment  is  be¬ 
sides  merely  negative  in  character.  It  does  not  in¬ 
sure  a  city  control  over  its  own  affairs.  It  gives  no 
city  a  chance  to  initiate  constructive  legislation. 
The  only  genuine  remedy  lies  in  giving  each  city 


12 


complete  authority  over  its  local  affairs  through  its 
own  local  legislature  or  governing  body.  A  city 
must  have  autonomy  if  it  is  ever  to  become  an  in¬ 
telligently  governed  community. 

In  Other  States. 

In  other  states  of  the  Union  great  advances  have 
been  made  in  the  matter  of  city  government.  Amer¬ 
ican  legislatures  generally  are  beginning  to  appre¬ 
ciate  the  dual  character  of  a  city  government  and 
to  differentiate  the  sphere  of  local  action  in  which 
the  city  should  be  free  from  all  legislative  inter¬ 
ference  and  the  domain  in  which  it  is  merely  an  agent 
of  the  State.  The  right  of  cities  to  self-government 
— a  right  acknowledged  in  Great  Britain  and  upon 
the  Continent  of  Europe,  a  right  which  may  in  a 
sense  be  said  to  be  as  old  as  civilization  itself,  a 
right  upon  which  the  ancient  cities  of  Greece  in¬ 
sisted — is  now  recognized  in  numerous  State  con¬ 
stitutions.*  Instead  of  being  in  the  van,  New 
York  is  now  in  the  rear  of  municipal  progress.  The 
roll  of  States  in  which  cities  are  given  constitu¬ 
tional  protection  of  their  own  affairs,  constitutional 
immunity  from  the  assaults  of  legislatures  of  shift¬ 
ing  political  faith,  is  large  and  constantly  increas¬ 
ing.  In  many  States  the  legislature  is  forbidden  to 
pass  any  special  act  creating  or  altering  a  munici¬ 
pal  corporation,  and  with  this  is  usually  found  posi¬ 
tive  mandate  to  provide  by  general  law  for  munici¬ 
pal  incorporation.  Such  provisions  are  found  in  the 
constitutions  of  Arkansas,  California,  Illinois,  In¬ 
diana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Ohio,  Oregon,  Pennsylvania, 
South  Carolina,  South  Dakota,  Utah,  Minnesota, 
Mississippi,  Missouri,  Nebraska,  New  Jersey,  North 

♦The  self-government  which  Rome  granted  to  the  cities  of 
Italy  made  them  bear  her  supremacy  without  complaint.  In 
fact,  her  generous  treatment  of  the  cities  of  southern  Italy  saved 
her  from  dismemberment  during  the  Hannibalic  wars,  for  these 
cities  refused  to  unite  their  fortunes  with  those  of  the  Cartha- 
jinian  invaders. 


13 


Dakota,  Virginia,  Washington,  West  Virginia.  The 
results  are  visible  in  the  cities  themselves.  Some 
of  the  finest  examples  of  municipal  administration 
to  be  seen  upon  this  continent  are  our  western  cit¬ 
ies.  In  the  government  of  its  territories  the  United 
States  has  followed  the  same  rule.  The  “Harrison 
Act”  forbids  the  incorporation  of  municipalities  by 
special  legislation. 

A  Distinct  Gain. 

Distinct  gain  has  indeed  been  made  in  the  last 
forty  years,  even  in  this  State.  At  times  it  seems, 
however,  as  though  we  had  gone  backward.  The 
budgets  of  the  City  of  New  York  are  no  longer 
carried  to  Albany,  but  the  legislature  still  keeps 
constantly  tinkering  with  the  charter  of  the  first 
city  of  the  nation.  The  present  Greater  New  York 
was  organized  in  1897  under  a  charter  granting  a 
slight  measure  of  municipal  independence.  That 
charter  was  revised  in  1901  along  similar  lines. 
But  between  1897  and  the  revision  of  1901  the  legis¬ 
lature  passed  58  separate  acts  amending  the  char¬ 
ter  of  1897 ;  between  the  revision  of  1901  and  the 
fall  of  1907  the  legislature  amended  267  sections 
of  the  charter  of  1901  and  added  46  new  sections. 
Between  1897  and  1907  it  passed  650  separate  and 
special  acts  each  directly  affecting  the  property, 
government  or  rights  of  the  city.  Nor  has  the  legis¬ 
lature  been  less  active  since  1907  in  changing  the 
New  York  City  charter.  In  1908  it  passed  71 
amendments;  in  1909,  25  amendments;  in  1910,  28; 
in  1911,  34;  and  in  1912,  49.  It  also,  in  each  of 
those  years,  passed  a  number  of  special  statutes  di¬ 
rectly  affecting  the  city’s  government.  In  1908 
there  were  25  such  enactments;  in  1909,  29;  in 
1910,  59 ;  in  1911,  the  year  of  the  famous  Levy  Elec¬ 
tion  Law,  32;  in  1912,  23.  The  habit  of  appealing 
to  Albany  for  legislation,  either  amending  the  city 


14 


charter  or  in  the  form  of  special  acts  affecting  the 
city’s  purse  or  government,  has  been  a  growing 
evil  from  1857  onward.  Prior  to  1857  it  was  a 
cardinal  principle  that  the  city  was  master  of 
its  own  government  with  the  right  to  originate  its 
form  of  charter  and  have  that  charter  submitted 
to  vote  of  the  people  of  the  city.  As  Mr.  James 
Bryce  has  forcibly  observed: 

“Since  that  date  the  largest  city  of  the  Amer¬ 
ican  continent  has  lain  at  the  mercy  of  the 
state  legislature ;  and  the  legislature  has  not 
scrupled  to  remodel  and  disarrange  the  govern¬ 
mental  institutions  of  the  city.  Its  charter  has 
been  subjected  to  a  continual  ‘tinkering’  that 
has  made  the  law  uncertain  and  a  comprehen¬ 
sion  of  its  administration  extremely  difficult.” 

Evils  of  Charter  Tinkering. 

This  is  true  not  only  as  to  New  York  City,  but 
also  as  to  every  city  of  the  State.  This  evil  habit 
of  constantly  altering  or  revising  city  charters  per¬ 
vades  the  entire  State.  Mr.  Seth  Low  expressed 
the  idea  felicitously  in  declaring  that  “the  habit  of 
interference  in  the  details  of  city  action  had  become 
to  the  legislature  almost  a  second  nature.”  Every 
year  there  is  some  degree  of  paternal  legislation 
over  the  various  cities  of  the  State  and  legislative 
committees  often  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  min¬ 
ute  details  of  government  and  administration  that 
should  be  entrusted  entirely  to  the  local  authorities 
— all  to  the  detriment  of  general  legislation. 

The  advocates  of  home  rule  do  not  demand  that 
the  city  be  altogether  divorced  from  the  State  gov¬ 
ernment.  They  do  not  desire  a  secession  of  the  city 
from  the  State.  They  recognize  with  Governor  Til- 
den  and  Judge  Cooley  that  there  is  a  domain  of 
general  legislation  which  the  city  charter  should 
not  touch.  They  admit  that  in  a  sense  the  city  re¬ 
ceives  its  powers  as  a  grant  from  the  State,  and 


15 


that  it  has  no  absolute  right  to  change  the  struc¬ 
ture  of  its  government;  but  they  maintain  that  all 
powers  which  are  distinctly  municipal  should  be 
under  the  control  of  the  city  itself  and  be  free  from 
all  legislative  interference. 

The  Boss  and  the  Machine. 

In  the  last  few  decades  there  has  developed  a  new 
force  in  our  political  life  which  is  unrecognized  in 
the  constitution  of  the  State.  It  is  sometimes 
spoken  of  as  “the  boss,”  sometimes  styled  “the 
machine”  or  “the  ring;”  but  whatever  its  name  it 
is  a  power  that  works  in  secret  in  conjunction  with 
interests  inimical  to  the  welfare  of  the  State  and 
the  city.  It  operates  at  one  time  through  one  of 
the  two  political  parties,  at  others  through  the 
other,  and  often  with  the  aid  of  both.  No  small 
amount  of  legislation  during  the  last  twenty  years 
has  been  placed  upon  the  statute  book  at  the  behest 
of  this  power.  This  legislation  has  promoted  the 
expansion  of  great  private  interests ;  has  assisted  in 
the  creation  of  vast  personal  fortunes ;  has,  in  the 
interest  of  a  few,  manipulated  franchises  to  which 
the  people  through  their  industries  and  activities 
have  imparted  the  value.  Public  business  has  be¬ 
come  so  vast,  varied,  and  profitable,  that  the  con¬ 
trol  of  it  is  the  important  thing  sought  by  the  boss 
or  the  machine,  for  through  its  control  patronage 
is  dispensed,  contracts  are  secured  and  political  in¬ 
fluence  and  power  maintained.  The  necessity  to 
secure  this  control  establishes  an  alliance  between 
men  nominally  of  opposite  politics  which  goes 
deeper  than  political  faith. 

Government  both  of  the  city  and  the  State  has 
become  a  source  of  profit,  and  the  larger  the 
city,  the  more  extensive  its  public  opera¬ 
tions,  the  more  enormous  the  profit.  The 
constant  problem  of  the  interests  behind  the  boss 


16 


is  how  to  maintain  and  enlarge  their  control  over 
the  business  which  the  modern  city  and  the  modern 
State  inevitably  conduct.  The  line  of  cleavage  is 
between  the  taxpayers  who  foot  the  bills  and  the 
interests  of  all  sorts  banded  together  to  exploit  the 
city  for  their  own  enrichment.  The  battle  for  mu¬ 
nicipal  freedom  is  not  only  a  struggle  for  relief  from 
needless  and  irritating  legislative  interference  with 
city  government  in  endless  details,  but  for  relief 
from  “boss”  control,  from  “machine”  dictation ;  for 
control  of  their  own  affairs  by  the  people  of  the  lo¬ 
cality  as  against  control  purely  in  the  interest  of 
the  great  corporations  which  batten  upon  public 
franchises;  for  the  right  to  have  city  contracts  and 
business  executed  and  administered  economically 
and  efficiently.  The  issue  is  whether  the  cities  of 
the  State  shall  do  their  own  local  work  in  their  own 
way  under  their  own  supervision,  or  be  constantly 
in  danger  of  having  the  largest  and  most  profitable 
undertakings  at  any  time  taken  by  the  legislature 
out  of  their  hands,  or  have  work  forced  upon  them 
needlessly  because  politicians  and  contractors  want 
a  job,  or,  in  order  to  accomplish  the  simplest  ends 
of  business,  government  be  compelled  to  seek  legis¬ 
lation  or  submit  to  utter  paralysis  of  proper  city 
business. 


Recent  Attempts  at  Revision. 

There  could  not  be  a  better  illustration  of  the 
danger  to  a  city  in  the  control  of  its  charter  by  the 
State  legislature  than  the  attempt  of  the  legisla¬ 
ture  of  1911  to  revise  the  charter  of  the  City  of 
New  York.  Were  the  history  of  this  iniquitous 
series  of  legislative  measures  fully  understood,  the 
people  of  the  City  of  New  York  and  I  believe  the 
people  of  the  State  would  almost  universally  de¬ 
mand  a  home  rule  constitutional  provision.  That 
persons  responsible  for  these  legislative  assaults 


l7  • 


upon  the  chief  city  of  the  State  should  have  had  the 
audacity  to  take  the  money  of  the  State  while  per¬ 
forming  what  in  reality  was  a  private  service,  shows 
to  what  an  extent  the  conception  of  public  duty  has 
been  degraded  by  ‘‘machine”  and  “party”  rule  in 
matters  properly  unrelated  to  party  altogether. 

An  unsuccessful  effort  was  made  during  Gover¬ 
nor  Hughes’  administration  to  obtain  a  new  char¬ 
ter  for  the  City  of  New  York.  The  underlying 
theory  of  the  Hughes  commission  was  sound,  what¬ 
ever  errors  it  may  have  committed  in  formulation. 
It  truthfully  declared  that  “the  most  radical  cause 
of  our  municipal  failures  is  the  instability  of  our 
city  governments  and  the  absence  of  any  guaranty 
of  a  continuous  policy.”  This  instability  will  per¬ 
sist  so  long  as  legislation  may  be  imposed  upon  the 
city  from  without.  The  practice  of  constant  legis¬ 
lative  interference  tends  to  undermine  the  sense  of 
political  duty  in  the  matter  of  local  self-government 
and  renders  us  more  timorous  in  undertaking  the 
necessary  work,  and  less  fitted  to  do  it  well. 

The  Gaynor  Charter. 

The  efforts  of  the  Hughes  commission  to  frame 
a  charter  were  continued  by  the  legislature  in  1910. 
When  the  Gaynor  administration  came  into  power 
in  the  City  of  New  York  the  legislature  at  first 
seemed  willing  to  give  it  an  opportunity  to  draft  a 
charter.  The  Mayor  appears  to  have  consulted 
with  his  department  chiefs,  with  the  result  that 
through  the  staff  in  the  office  of  his  Corporation 
Counsel  a  charter  called  the  “Gaynor  charter”  was 
drafted.  In  reality  it  was  the  first  of  a  series  of 
Gaynor  charters.  This  extraordinary  jumble  of 
scientific  and  unscientific  provisions,  like  Nebu¬ 
chadnezzar’s  statue,  part  of  gold,  part  of  iron,  part 
of  clay,  chiefly  the  last,  was  presented  to  the  legis¬ 
lature  in  March,  1911.  At  once  it  encountered  a 


18 


storm  of  public  opposition.  It  was  crude,  amor¬ 
phous,  ill-phrased,  and  above  all,  regressive  in  char¬ 
acter.  It  was  manifestly  a  political  charter.  The  ef¬ 
fort  to  pass  it  was  abandoned.  But  that  was  not  the 
end  for,  unfortunately,  a  committee  of  the  legislature 
took  in  hand  the  preparation  of  a  new  measure  which 
at  first  it  was  purposed  to  pass  through  both  houses 
without  sufficient  opportunity  for  public  criticism  or 
public  discussion.  The  plan  miscarried,  for  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  refused  to  be  a  party  to  it.  The  charter  bill 
became  public.  Like  the  man  in  the  scriptures  who 
was  ultimately  possessed  by  devils,  the  last  state  of 
that  charter  legislation  was  worse  than  the  first.  To 
those  of  us  who  had  entered  with  zeal  and  earnestness 
into  the  work  of  framing  a  worthy  new  charter,  it 
seemed,  before  the  end  came,  as  though  our  flank  had 
been  turned,  so  that  our  efforts,  instead  of  being  de¬ 
voted  to  improvement  of  the  existing  charter,  were 
directed  to  preserve  what  was  good  in  it  and  to  prevent 
the  passage  of  anything  worse.  The  hope  of  a  better 
charter  had  disappeared  in  the  fight  to  retain  as  good 
a  one  as  we  had. 

Climax  of  Legislative  Interference. 

This,  then,  is  the  climax  at  which  government  of 
a  city  by  the  legislature  has  arrived.  Against  such 
despotism  we  protest.  Against  it  we  maintain  the 
right  of  the  city  to  be  free  to  make  its  own  constitu¬ 
tion,  to  decide  upon  its  own  frame-work  of  govern¬ 
ment,  through  delegates  from  its  own  residents  in  open 
convention  or  by  petition  initiated  by  a  sufficient 
number  of  citizens. 


A  Free  City. 

It  is  the  purest  sophistry  to  argue  that  there  can 
be  no  free  city  within  the  limits  of  a  state.  We 
do  not  contend  that  any  city  should  be  free  and 


19 


independent  of  obligations  to  the  state,  or  beyond 
control  by  the  constitution  and  the  general  laws. 
That  was  the  dream  of  Fernando  Wood,  while 
Mayor  of  New  York  City  in  1861,  when  out  of  def¬ 
erence  to  pro-slavery  sentiment,  he  would  have 
had  the  city  secede  from  the  rest  of  the  state.  The 
opposite  pole  to  this  creed  is  that  of  the  legislative 
boss,  which  is  that  cities  should  be  kept  in  subjec¬ 
tion  to  the  corrupting  influence  of  state  partisan 
politics.  The  true  mean  is  the  doctrine  we  advo¬ 
cate — a  doctrine  that  has  had  the  hearty  approval 
of  some  of  the  greatest  names  in  the  State’s  political 
history — that  the  government  of  the  municipality 
should  be  sovereign  in  respect  of  matters  pertaining 
to  the  powers  and  duties  of  its  officials,  their  terms 
of  office  and  compensation,  the  issue  of  its  bonds 
and  other  obligations,  the  incurring  of  city  debt, 
the  subject  of  local  taxation,  the  acquisition  and 
management  of  city  properties,  including  public 
utilities.  It  is  a  chimera  to  assume  that  any  one 
purposes  to  give  the  city  “unrestricted  and  uncon¬ 
trolled  power.”  We  would  set  up  between  the  city 
and  the  State  the  same  analogy  as  exists  between 
the  State  and  the  Nation.  No  State  in  the  Union, 
however  much  it  may  boast  of  sovereignty,  is  sov¬ 
ereign.  In  some  things  the  United  States  is  sov¬ 
ereign  over  it.  But  each  travels  its  respective  orbit 
without  interference  with  the  other.  If  the  legisla¬ 
ture  is  to  be  supreme  over  the  city  in  respect  of  all  its 
affairs,  then  the  constitution  must  be  changed,  for 
the  legislature  is  not  properly  supreme  over  the  city 
in  all  things.  In  so  far  as  the  city  is  a  political 
or  governmental  subdivision  of  the  State,  an  agency 
of  the  State  to  do  its  work,  the  legislature  is  su¬ 
preme  over  it,  but  in  so  far  as  it  is  an  aggregation  of 
people  choosing  to  carry  on  collectively  certain  lo¬ 
cal  business  of  a  general  nature,  “matters,”  as  Gov¬ 
ernor  Tilden  once  said,  “most  conveniently  attended 


20 


to  in  partnership  by  persons  living  together  in  a 
dense  community/’  for  obvious  reasons  it  should 
have  unqualified  control  of  this  business.  In  ex¬ 
clusively  local  concerns  we  would  make  the  city 
sovereign,  although  still  part  of  the  State  and  sub¬ 
ject  to  its  superior  law.  This  is  the  immemorial 
home  rule  principle,  the  imperishable  neighborhood 
and  city  instinct,  that  has  persisted  against  all 
State  centralization  and  will  persist  until  its  ac¬ 
ceptance  has  taken  the  form  of  a  constitutional 
guaranty.  The  doctrine  is  rooted  in  the  traditions 
and  affections  of  every  locality.  It  is  acknowledged 
in  many  State  constitutions.  Put  it  up  to  every 
State  convention  that  will  assemble  in  this  State 
this  fall.  The  people  of  New  York  City  will  not 
readily  forget  the  odious  charter  legislation  at¬ 
tempted  in  1911.  The  party  that  will  not  inscribe 
home  rule  for  cities  in  its  platform  is  doomed  to 
defeat  and  ultimate  oblivion. 

Separate  City  and  State  Elections. 

The  greatest  single  achievement  for  city  emanci¬ 
pation  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1894 
was  the  separation  of  municipal  from  State  and 
national  elections  by  confining  the  municipal  elec¬ 
tions  within  the  odd  numbered  years  and  the  State 
and  national  elections  to  the  even  numbered  years. 
It  has  had  a  truly  astonishing  influence  in  encourag¬ 
ing  independent  voting  in  municipal  elections.  So 
common  has  it  become  for  opponents  in  State  and 
national  politics  to  combine  in  municipal  elections, 
that  the  practice  has  given  birth,  or  at  least  a  new 
meaning,  to  the  word  “Fusion.”  In  local  elections 
we  vote  to-day  with  a  freedom  from  party  affilia¬ 
tions  that  would  have  seemed  well  nigh  impossible 
twenty  years  ago.  But  there  is  another  forward 
step  to  be  taken,  and  it  should  be  taken  at  once, 
whether  the  ballot  in  other  respects  is  simplified  or 


21 


not.  It  is  the  duty  of  this  organization  to  advo¬ 
cate  such  changes  in  the  Election  Law  as  shall  in¬ 
sure  the  election  of  municipal  officers  without  the 
use  of  national  party  names  or  emblems  and  allow 
the  free  and  unhampered  nomination  of  independent 
candidates  by  a  reasonably  sufficient  percentage  of 
municipal  voters. 

To  give  full  effect  to  the  principle  underlying  the 
constitutional  amendment  separating  state  from 
local  elections,  the  law  should  forbid  the  use  of 
national  party  names  or  emblems  upon  ballots  used 
in  local  elections.  This  I  believe  could  constitu¬ 
tionally  be  done.  The  purpose  of  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1894  was  to  enable  the  people  to  vote 
in  local  matters  irrespective  of  national  party  affilia¬ 
tions — to  weaken  party  hold  where  party  ties  should 
not  prevail.  This  end  will  never  be  fully  achieved 
until  national  party  names  and  emblems  are  ban¬ 
ished  altogether  from  local  ballots.  Logically  they 
have  no  place  there.  People  should  vote  with  re¬ 
gard  only  to  the  local  issue,  without  thought  of  na¬ 
tional  parties;  why  then  obtrude  the  national  party 
name  or  emblem  upon  their  attention? 

Independent  Nominations. 

Lree  and  untrammeled  nomination  of  independent 
candidates  is  also  necessary  for  the  promotion  of 
the  cause  of  local  self-government.  The  ballot  is 
the  weapon  whereby  the  people  of  a  community 
preserve  their  freedom.  That  freedom  is  menaced 
by  those  who  would  make  government  an  agency 
for  their  own  enrichment  and  by  the  bosses  whom 
they  use  for  the  accomplishment  of  their  ends.  The 
ballot  is  our  only  effective  protest  against  perver¬ 
sion  of  government.  But  it  is  a  broken  weapon,  a 
swordless  sheath,  without  the  power  to  nominate 
as  well  as  to  vote.  Whether  suffrage  be  a  right  or 
a  privilege  it  is  a  mockery  to  extend  to  the  voter 


22 


a  cnoice  between  candidates  neither  of  whom  is  his 
own  selection.  He  is  not  a  free  man  whose  ballot 
permits  him  only  to  choose  A  or  B  to  rule  over 
him ;  he  must  have  the  right  also  to  nominate  his 
rulers.  How  astute  in  this  political  philosophy  re¬ 
cent  legislatures  have  been  may  be  seen  in  those 
amendments  to  the  Election  Law  which  strike  at 
freedom  of  nomination,  for  these  political  philoso¬ 
phers  recognize,  and  truly  recognize,  that  by  im¬ 
pediments  in  the  way  of  free  nomination  they  keep 
nominations  in  the  control  of  national  political  par¬ 
ties,  and  thus  control  city  government.  To  insure 
sound  city  government  or  city  self-government  it 
will  be  necessary  to  secure  for  the  city  voter  free¬ 
dom  in  respect  of  nominations.  The  struggle  should 
be  to  get  rid  of  the  partisan  ballot  and  to  substitute 
the  Australian  ballot  in  its  stead.  When  this  has 
been  accomplished  city  independence  will  become 
assured.  The  Levy  Election  Law  of  1911  has  im¬ 
posed  many  restrictions  upon  signers  of  independent 
petitions  which  are  not  applicable  to  party  nomina¬ 
tors — the  manifest  purpose  being  to  render  inde¬ 
pendent  political  activity  extremely  difficult.  Only 
those  who  have  given  study  to  the  subject  are  con¬ 
scious  of  the  extent  of  the  encroachment  upon  free¬ 
dom  in  nominations  which  the  legislature  of  this 
State  has  been  making  of  late  years.  The  number 
of  signers  required  for  an  independent  nomination 
has  been  steadily  made  larger  and  larger,  out  of 
all  proportion  to  the  growth  of  population.' 

The  Law  of  1890. 

When  the  system  of  independent  nominations  was 
created  in  1890  the  law  provided  that  for  the  nomin¬ 
ation  by  petition  of  state  officers  or  of  officers  to  be 
voted  for  by  all  the  voters  of  the  state,  a  nomin¬ 
ating  petition  properly  signed  by  1,000  voters  should 
be  sufficient.  It  provided  that  independent  nomina- 


23 


tions  for  public  officers  other  than  municipal 
in  districts  less  than  the  entire  State  but  greater 
than  a  town  or  a  ward  in  a  city,  includ¬ 
ing  counties  (except  New  York  and  Kings) 
should  require  250  signatures ;  in  the  counties  of 
New  York  and  Kings,  300  signers.  To  nominate  an 
assemblyman  independently  required  100  signa¬ 
tures.  By  the  law  of  1892  these  numbers  in  all 
instances  were  greatly  increased.  Nominations  for 
State  officers  required  3000  signatures ;  for  public 
officers  in  districts  less  than  the  State  500  signa¬ 
tures,  in  New  York  and  Kings  Counties  600  signa¬ 
tures;  for  assemblyman,  250  signatures.  In  1896 
the  number  of  signatures  necessary  to  nominate 
State  officers  was  made  6000 ;  public  officers  in  dis¬ 
tricts  less  than  the  entire  State  but  greater  than 
assembly  districts  1,000.  In  1911  this  number  was 
raised  to  1500,  which  is  far  more  than  the  number 
of  voters  needed  to  elect  a  ticket  in  some  counties 
of  the  State.  In  order  to  nominate  independently 
for  assemblyman  the  law  of  1911  renders  the  sig¬ 
nature  of  800  voters  necessary.  The  political  cor¬ 
ruptionist  is  ever  afraid  of  public  opinion.  He  pre¬ 
fers  not  to  arouse  it  and  always  seeks  to  prevent  its 
having  free  expression.  Hence  his  unalterable  and 
steadfast  purpose  to  hamper  the  independent  voter. 

Demand  for  New  Law. 

The  National  Progressive  Party  very  properly 
denounces  the  Levy  Election  Law  as  a  bi-partisan 
conspiracy  and  pledges  its  repeal  and  the  enact¬ 
ment  of  a  fair  and  understandable  statute.  An 
equally  unqualified  pledge  should  be  demanded 
from  the  other  political  parties.*  A  proper  law 
would,  among  other  things,  discard  the  flat  rate  and 
substitute  a  percentage  basis  as  the  fairest  method 
of  regulating  the  number  of  signers  of  independent 


♦This  has  since  been  procured. 

24 


certificates,  thereby  making  the  number  required 
depend  upon  the  population,  or  the  voting  popula¬ 
tion,  of  the  several  counties  and  sub-divisions  of  the 
State.  The  constitutionality  of  some  of  these  re¬ 
strictions  is  now  before  the  courts  of  this  State 
which  have  shown  a  commendable  disposition  to 
protect  the  independent  voter  from  the  attempts  of 
partisan  legislators  to  disfranchise  him — for  handi¬ 
caps  in  the  matter  of  nominations  constitute  par¬ 
tial  disfranchisement.  The  changes  made  in  the 
Election  Law  by  the  amendments  of  1911  had  their 
sole  inspiration  in  the  desire  to  discourage  inde¬ 
pendent  activities.  The  sponsors  of  this  legisla¬ 
tion  have  frankly  admitted  that,  inasmuch  as  the 
legislature  had  enacted  provisions  for  the  hold¬ 
ing  of  direct  primaries  by  parties,  it  was  justified  in 
making  independent  nominations  more  difficult. 
The  partisan  politician  makes  it  a  cardinal  principle 
of  his  creed  that  no  one  should  have  the  right  to 
nominate  or  even  to  vote  outside  of  a  party  organi¬ 
zation.  But  until  the  people  of  a  locality  can  es¬ 
cape  from  the  intolerable  tyranny  of  party  govern¬ 
ment,  and  nominate  and  vote  freely,  in  local  affairs, 
without  thought  of  national  party,  local  government 
will  never  attain  full  success. 

Guarantee  of  Improvement. 

What  guarantee,  it  may  be  asked,  can  be  given 
that  city  government  will  be  improved  under  home 
rule  charters?  The  impropriety  of  constant  legis¬ 
lative  alteration  of  city  government,  it  may  be  con¬ 
ceded,  is  proved.  The  legislature  is  unfitted  for  the 
task  of  local  legislation  and  is  diverted  from  its 
proper  work  of  legislating  for  the  entire  State.  The 
answer  is  that  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  people  of 
a  locality  to  obtain  good  government  and  what  they 
wish  they  will  obtain  if  the  power  is  placed  in  their 
hands.  The  history  of  all  improvements  in  muni- 


25 


cipal  administration  shows  that  they  have  sprung 
from  the  civic  pride  and  intelligence  of  the  people 
concerned.  Every  movement  inaugurated  in  this 
State  for  city  freedom  has  had  its  genesis  in  a  city. 
Every  wholesome  legislative  provision  regarding 
cities  that  has  been  placed  upon  the  statute  books 
has  been  initiated  in  the  cities  themselves,  and, 
with  the  aid  of  their  best  citizenship,  carried 
through  the  legislature.  Who,  indeed,  could  be  so 
genuinely  interested  in  the  best  kind  of  local  self- 
government  as  the  people  of  the  community  affected 
by  that  government ;  who  so  willing  as  they  to 
sacrifice  time,-  thought  and  money  in  efforts  to  se¬ 
cure  improvements  in  it?  Public-spirited  citizens 
contribute  their  time  and  thought  without  remun¬ 
eration  of  any  kind.  As  Lord  Morley  reminds  us, 
Edmund  Burke  worked  without  pay  in  the  public 
interest  with  such  untiring  energy  that  his  aston¬ 
ished  cousin  William  wrote,  “Ned  is  full  of  real 
business,  intent  upon  doing  solid  good  to  his  coun¬ 
try  as  much  as  if  he  was  to  receive  twenty  per 
cent,  from  the  Empire.”  City  life  develops  many 
men  of  the  Burke  type.  Under  home  rule  this  sort 
of  citizenship  will  multiply. 


A  Home  Rule  Programme. 

The  time  is  indeed  auspicious  for  the  promotion 
of  the  causes  inscribed  upon  your  banner.  Those 
objects  are: 

1.  — Home  rule  for  the  cities,  counties  and  villages 
of  this  State  by  the  grant  of  adequate  powers  of  self- 
government. 

2.  — The  passage  of  legislation  which  shall  allow 
the  free  choice  of  municipal  and  local  candidates  in 
municipal  and  local  elections  unconfused  by  the 
presence  of  party  names  or  emblems  upon  the  bal¬ 
lot. 


26 


3.  — The  enactment  of  a  general  municipal  cor¬ 
porations  act  enabling  the  voters  of  a  city  to  adopt 
a  commission  form  of  government  or  any  other  sim¬ 
plified  form  not  inconsistent  with  the  constitution 
or  general  laws  of  the  State. 

4.  — Constitutional  amendments,  if  necessary,  to 
guarantee  home  rule  in  the  municipal  sub-divisions 
of  the  State. 

Already  one  of  the  State  parties,  the  newest  in 
the  field,  has  pledged  its  devotion  to  these  princi¬ 
ples.  Its  platform  declares  that 

“Municipalities  should  be  given  power  to 
adopt  and  amend  their  charters  in  matters  per¬ 
taining  to  their  powers  and  the  duties,  terms 
of  office  and  compensation  of  officials ;  incur¬ 
ring  of  obligations;  methods  and  subjects  of 
local  taxation ;  and  the  acquisition  and  man¬ 
agement  of  municipal  properties,  including 
public  utilities.  We  are  opposed  to  special 
legislation  dealing  with  such  subjects.’' 

Observe  that  this  plank  almost  precisely  accords 
with  the  views  of  Henry  C.  Murphy  as  expressed 
in  the  State  Constitutional  Convention  of  1846,  of 
George  Opdyke  in  the  Constitutional  Commission 
of  1872,  and  of  Evarts,  Carter,  Godkin  and  their 
associates  in  the  Tilden  Commission  of  1875.  When 
out  of  regard  for  public  sentiment  parties  are  forced 
to  make  such  a  creed  part  of  their  platform,  there 
is  sound  reason  for  hope  of  the  early  embodiment 
of  the  principle  in  the  laws  and  constitution  of  the 
State.  The  National  Progressive  platform  declares 
also  that  it  should  be  made  possible  for  any  city 
to  adopt  the  commission  form  of  government. 

The  other  parties  of  the  State  must  be  asked  to 
take  equally  advanced  ground.  As  I  said  a  while 
ago,  the  party  that  refuses  to  pledge  itself  to  home 


27 


rule  for  cities  is  doomed  to  defeat  and  ultimate 
oblivion. 


An  Inspiring  Cause. 

You  are  not  fighting  for  mere  abstractions  or 
empty  formulas.  You  are  fighting  for  an  inspiring 
cause — that  of  the  home  and  the  family — the  cause 
of  the  child,  the  citizen  who  is  to  be.  A  large  pro¬ 
portion  of  the  population  must  live  in  cities.  The 
atmosphere  of  the  city  is  becoming  the  atmosphere 
of  an  ever  increasing  number  of  our  people.  The 
“more  and  fuller”  life  which  is  the  dream  of  mod¬ 
ern  democracy  includes  in  its  comprehensive  as¬ 
pirations  successful  treatment  of  the  housing,  the 
fire,  the  water,  the  sanitary,  the  transportation  prob¬ 
lem,  better  education,  ample  school  accommoda¬ 
tions,  recreation  centers,  parks,  courts  in  which  real 
justice  is  administered  to  the  poor,  streets  and  ave¬ 
nues  fitted  for  the  varied  business  of  a  city,  and  a 
comprehensive  city  plan  with  opportunities  for  ex¬ 
pansion  and  beautification.  The  test  of  a  civiliza¬ 
tion  may  be  said  to  lie  in  its  ability  to  solve  the 
intricate  problems  of  urban  life.  The  relations  of 
the  city  to  the  future  of  democracy  are  momentous 
indeed.  The  city  is  the  matrix,  the  mould,  out  of 
which  will  come,  perhaps,  the  greater  number  of 
American  citizens  of  the  future.  It  may  make  of 
them  grotesque  specimens  of  humanity,  may  de¬ 
grade  them  by  vicious  and  unsanitary  surroundings 
to  an  almost  sub-human  type,  or  may  elevate  them, 
and  beget  a  true  and  noble  citizenship.  There  is 
no  worthier  or  more  inspiring  cause  than  that  in 
which  you  are  engaged. 


oft 


3  0112  099017136 


